Dear I.R.S., It Is Time to Enforce the Campaigning Prohibition. Even Against Churches

Samuel D. Brunson
{"title":"Dear I.R.S., It Is Time to Enforce the Campaigning Prohibition. Even Against Churches","authors":"Samuel D. Brunson","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2546453","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In 1954, Congress prohibited tax-exempt public charities, including churches, from endorsing or opposing candidates for office. To the extent a tax-exempt public charity violated this prohibition, it would no longer qualify as tax-exempt, and the I.R.S. was to revoke its exemption.While simple in theory, in practice, the I.R.S. rarely penalizes churches that violate the campaigning prohibition, and virtually never revokes a church’s tax exemption. And, because no taxpayer has standing to challenge the I.R.S.’s inaction, the I.R.S. has no external imperative to revoke the exemptions of churches that do campaign on behalf of or against candidates for office.This argument makes the normative case that, notwithstanding the I.R.S.’s administrative discretion and the inability of taxpayers to challenge its nonenforcement in court, the time has come for the I.R.S. to begin enforcing the campaigning prohibition. Failing to do so harms the Rule of Law, the taxpaying public, and churches themselves. Moreover, the moment is correct for enforcement, as Pulpit Freedom Sunday has virtually eliminated the I.R.S.’s search costs, people are more aware than ever that churches are violating the prohibition, and, in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, the campaigning prohibition may represent the final regulatory barrier between charities and politicking.Even if enforcing the campaigning prohibition is the right thing to do, it would potentially be unpopular, and could provoke a backlash against the I.R.S. After making the normative case for enforcement, then, this Article provides a strategy for enforcement that will allow the I.R.S. to explain what it is doing and why to the general taxpaying public, and will further permit the I.R.S. to avoid the appearance of partisanship. Ultimately, enforcement will allow the I.R.S. to responsibly administer the tax law, will permit the question of the prohibition’s constitutionality to get in front of the judiciary, and will demonstrate dedication to the Rule of Law.","PeriodicalId":129013,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of Law eJournal","volume":"64 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy of Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2546453","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

In 1954, Congress prohibited tax-exempt public charities, including churches, from endorsing or opposing candidates for office. To the extent a tax-exempt public charity violated this prohibition, it would no longer qualify as tax-exempt, and the I.R.S. was to revoke its exemption.While simple in theory, in practice, the I.R.S. rarely penalizes churches that violate the campaigning prohibition, and virtually never revokes a church’s tax exemption. And, because no taxpayer has standing to challenge the I.R.S.’s inaction, the I.R.S. has no external imperative to revoke the exemptions of churches that do campaign on behalf of or against candidates for office.This argument makes the normative case that, notwithstanding the I.R.S.’s administrative discretion and the inability of taxpayers to challenge its nonenforcement in court, the time has come for the I.R.S. to begin enforcing the campaigning prohibition. Failing to do so harms the Rule of Law, the taxpaying public, and churches themselves. Moreover, the moment is correct for enforcement, as Pulpit Freedom Sunday has virtually eliminated the I.R.S.’s search costs, people are more aware than ever that churches are violating the prohibition, and, in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, the campaigning prohibition may represent the final regulatory barrier between charities and politicking.Even if enforcing the campaigning prohibition is the right thing to do, it would potentially be unpopular, and could provoke a backlash against the I.R.S. After making the normative case for enforcement, then, this Article provides a strategy for enforcement that will allow the I.R.S. to explain what it is doing and why to the general taxpaying public, and will further permit the I.R.S. to avoid the appearance of partisanship. Ultimately, enforcement will allow the I.R.S. to responsibly administer the tax law, will permit the question of the prohibition’s constitutionality to get in front of the judiciary, and will demonstrate dedication to the Rule of Law.
亲爱的国税局,是时候执行竞选禁令了。甚至反对教会
1954年,国会禁止免税的公共慈善机构,包括教堂,支持或反对候选人的职位。在某种程度上,免税的公共慈善机构违反了这一禁令,它将不再具有免税资格,国税局将撤销其免税资格。虽然理论上很简单,但在实践中,国税局很少惩罚违反竞选禁令的教会,而且几乎从未撤销教会的免税资格。而且,由于没有纳税人有资格挑战国税局的不作为,国税局没有外部命令来撤销那些代表或反对竞选候选人的教堂的豁免。这一论点提出了一个规范的案例,即尽管国税局拥有行政自由裁量权,纳税人也无法在法庭上质疑其不执行,但国税局开始执行竞选禁令的时机已经到来。如果做不到这一点,就会损害法治、纳税人和教会本身。此外,现在正是实施的好时机,因为“讲坛自由星期天”实际上已经消除了国税局的搜索成本,人们比以往任何时候都更加意识到教会正在违反禁令,而且,在最高法院对“联合公民”(Citizens United)的裁决之后,竞选禁令可能代表了慈善机构和政治活动之间的最后一道监管障碍。即使执行竞选禁令是正确的事情,它也可能不受欢迎,并可能引发对国税局的强烈反对。在提出执行的规范性案例之后,本文提供了一种执行策略,使国税局能够向普通纳税人解释它在做什么以及为什么这么做,并进一步允许国税局避免出现党派偏见。最终,执法将使国税局能够负责任地执行税法,将使禁令的合宪性问题摆在司法部门面前,并将展示对法治的奉献精神。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信